Date of Filing : 13.02.2017 

Date of Disposal : 24.05.2021

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU 

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY-2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI  : MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL NO.435/2017

 

 

 

1

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Lava International Ltd., A-56, Sector 64, Noida, UP-201301.

 

The Proprietor, Sri Sai Mobiles and Gift Gallery, Sridevi Compex, 1st Floor, Near Santhepete Circle, B.D.Road, Chitradurga.

 

Sri Raghavendra Communications, Authorized District Distributors for Xolo (Lava) Mobile Handsets, Keerthi Plaza, Upstairs to Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., II Floor, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.

 

Authorized Officer/Authorized Manager, Millennium Comp Care Centre, Lava Mobiles Customer Service Centre, Behind Bata Show Room, Vanigotra Complex, B.D.Road, Chitradurga 

 

Adv.Sri.B.Pramod

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

….Appellant/s

 

V/s

 

 

 

 

Lakmaram.V.Sain 

S/o Vagtaram, Age 25 years, R/o Burujanahatti Circle Down, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga

 

 

 

…..Respondent/s

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

1. The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal against the order passed by Chitradurga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dtd.16.12.2016.

 

 

2. The brief facts of the appeal are, the respondent/Complainant had purchased one mobile handset from Opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by Opposite party No.4. After purchasing the mobile handset, it found defective within warranty period. Hence, Opposite party No.1 referred the same for repair with authorised service station. But the authorised service station of Opposite party No.1 has not repaired and returned back by suggesting to approach Opposite party No.4 for replacement of the mobile handset. When Opposite party No.1 to 4 not rectified the defects noticed in the mobile handset, the Complainant alleged the deficiency of service filed the complaint before Chitradurga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking either for repair or for replacement of the mobile handset. 

 

3. The District Commission after admission have issued the notice against these appellants. But they have not appeared before District Commission inspite of service of notice and subsequently after evidence, District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite party No.1 to 4 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of mobile and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony. Against this order, the appellants are before this Commission. 

 

4. Heard the arguments from the appellants.

 

5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order, we noticed that, it is categorically mentioned by the District Commission that, notice issued by the District Commission was served on the Opposite party No.1 to 4. After service of notice, these appellants have not appeared before District Commission. Whereas, they said in the memorandum of appeal that, notice issued by the District Commission was not served on them. Arguments submitted by the appellants are not acceptable. The appellants ought to appear before District Commission to take defence after service of notice. Instead of that, they have remained absent during the trail. They have not made out any valid grounds before this Commission to set aside the order of District Commission. We found there is no error in the order passed by District Commission. As the mobile handset found defect within warranty period, they are liable to comply the order as passed by the District Commission. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both parties. 

 

 

 

                 MEMBER                     JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

 

 

*NG*